Foreword: My class at Tulane with James Carville has probably been one of the best experiences of my college career. Between the guests and the sheer experience of spending time with one of the best political consultants of our time, its been an amazing and memorable semester so far, and it looks to be getting better all the time. Our latest assignment was to write an op-ed looking at Obama’s economic promises as a candidate and whether his economic policies have actually followed through with those promises. Inspired by an ad I saw by the NRSC, I decided to examine some of the claims and write an editorial piece focusing on some of the messages of the video. With some small modification, the following is assignment I turned in.

“Change we can believe in”. That was the motto for Candidate Obama. When he was elected, the mandate was clear- the American people demanded change. After the September 18^th stock market nosedive, the mandate seemed even clearer- President Obama would be expected to enact significant change on an economic level. Candidate Obama made no small attempt to provide leadership in that regard- as a candidate and as President-Elect, Obama promised economic reform in the areas of budget oversight, earmark reform and fiscal transparency. Yet in examining the policies of his first two months, it appears that President Obama has gone back on his word on every front.

In his debate with Senator McCain, Candidate Obama stated “from the moment I take office, my top priority will be to do everything I can to make sure your tax dollars are protected. I’ll demand a full review of this financial rescue plan to make sure that it is working for you.” As President-Elect, Obama would say in a press conference that “we’re not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to make sure that the investments are made wisely and managed well.” The implication was clear- previous administrations had failed due to lack of attention to oversight, and his would not.

I’m sure anyone would agree that giving AIG executives huge corporate bonuses does not count as wise management. Yet according to Christopher Dodd, the Obama administration officials pushed for language which allowed AIG bonuses to be grandfathered in. When Obama finally responded to this, he admitted “it is appropriate when you’re in charge to make sure stuff doesn’t happen like this”- attention to oversight is apparently much easier said than done.

Speaking of protecting tax dollars, according to Candidate Obama- “Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” Then, when talking about the economic recovery bill, President-Elect Obama said “My recovery and reinvestment plan will set a new, higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks.” High standards indeed.

But this approach towards fiscal discipline and oversight was not applied to the omnibus spending bill, signed just 22 days later. According to the Heritage Foundation, approximately 9,287 earmarks were stuffed into the Omnibus Spending Bill at a cost of nearly $13 billion dollars. As Obama signed the 1,132 page bill, he said “I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government”, almost without any sense of irony.

Like the bars who promise “Free Beer Tomorrow”, Obama seems to promise “Earmark Free Tomorrow”. This begs the question- how can earmarks be bad in one bill, but perfectly acceptable in the next, but then not after that? If the recovery package was supposed to raise the standards, why reverse those standards for the next bill? Furthermore, how could Obama have gone line-by-line over all 1,132 pages in the bill to ensure the money was being spent wisely?

The answer, Candidate Obama would say, is that the people should be able to review for themselves, in the last defense against fiscal irresponsibility- the process of transparency. And so Candidate Obama makes the promise that as president, he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

Yet the first two bills that passed the house and senate were signed shortly after they reached the President’s desk, despite the fact that they could hardly be called “emergency” bills. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed by President Obama, was signed two days after its final passage. The same happened with Obama’s second bill, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, signed on the same day as its final passage.

When it came to the economic stimulus package, not even the senators had time to read the 1,073 stimulus bill before being called into a roll-call vote less than 24 hours after receiving it. This came despite a previous resolution stating that all bills had to wait 48 hours before a roll-call vote could be held. What could have been an opportunity to allow accountability and transparency became a shining example of how political reality hampers campaign rhetoric.

The problem is that Obama was elected precisely because people expected something beyond rhetoric- they wanted “change we can believe in”. Yet when examining his record on budget oversight, earmark reform and fiscal transparency, President Obama falls short of the standards set by Candidate Obama.

Last 5 posts by Brad Tidwell

• Voter Fraud- There's an App for That? - April 14th, 2010
• Obama and International Perception - October 20th, 2009
• The Healthcare Debate, Simplified. - October 2nd, 2009
• Win $100 for Reporting Campus Leftist Abuse! - September 30th, 2009
• Serena, Kanye, Wilson and the GOP's Crisis of Coverage - September 22nd, 2009